Potential dead horse: how bad is FF's deep DoF disadvantage?

In the above photo I had to stop down to f7.1 to get enough DOF for the text on the wall to be legible, so the ISO went to 2000. A 4/3 camera could have given me the same shutter speed and DOF @ f3.6 and ISO 500. So which camera will have better image quality - 4/3 @ iso 500 or FF @ iso 2000? That would, of course depend on the camera, but an EM-1 at iso 500 should look good compared to any FF at iso 2000.

You could have also positioned her closer to the wall. I don't see anything preventing that other than perhaps your choice of focal length.

Here is another coffee shop example showing how razor thin the DOF can be on FF. In less then full length portraits opening up to less then f2 with FF becomes very challenging. You can end up with nothing but one eye perfectly sharp. Given a really fast and sharp 4/3 lens, like the voigtlander 45 f.95 this shot could have been done with a 4/3 camera at F 1, 1/125 and ISO 100.

The Voightlander 42.5mm f/0.95 is a $1000 manual focus lens. The Canon 85mm f/1.8 has ultrasonic AF and costs $419. It weighs a little less than the Voightlander lens, too, if that matters to you. Both are about the same size.